Alister
resolution is not a major part of the film look If it was then your saying digital would have more of a film look than 8mm. Film is a chemical process that ultimately creates an image with dyes. This leads to the film look. I watched my film on a 40' screen and felt the resolution looked as good as film but that doesn't mean it was if we want to look at the screen and do resolution tests I'm sure film would easily win. I also do not want to buy expensive charts and learn how to do tests. All I offer is my own personal opinion.

Although with the F3 all I see is a beautiful picture Some are saying it has issues in the highlights. Alan Roberts measured the noise level at -48.5db giving it an effective 8 stops. Sony rated it as -63db in their specs. He also rates the EX1 as -46db which would be close to the F3. Undoubtably Alan is right. As for the FS100 I disagree it delivers 12 stops and would love to see Alan Roberts test that.

Just to be clear the F3 has a beautiful picture and I would definately want it over an EX1

Mitch Gross of Abel Cine found 12 stops. I expect Geoff Boyle will have a test up on CML at some stage.

Alan Roberts test results seem to run counter to everyone else is finding regarding to the noise on the F3, that's unusual, because he normally does match with what you find in practise. I don't think you'd use 30 db gain and have low visibility noise on a 48 db camera.

I think you should test the camera yourself if you're considering buying one of these cameras. The FS100 seems to be a love it or hate it camera

QUOTE
Alan Roberts test results seem to run counter to everyone else is finding regarding to the noise on the F3, that's unusual, because he normally does match with what you find in practise.

Sorry Brian

Have to disagree Alan Roberts has access to the best equipment and is the best there is for this sort of stuff. If he says the F3 has -48.5db and the EX1 has -46db then that is right. I'm happy to accept my EX1 only has 8stops even though others claim it has much more. In this world of differing measurements that suit the facts there has to be a benchmark somewhere and for me Alan Roberts is as good as it gets. If others are getting different measurements its time to look at why.. Not they're right and Alan is wrong.

QUOTE
I don't think you'd use 30 db gain and have low visibility noise on a 48 db camera.

As Alan says the camera uses SIGNIFICANT noise reduction. At the expense of what? Resolution?

As I said, you should test the camera yourself and see if it produces the results you want. You can test the resolution at 30 db gain, if this is the important factor for you. Everyone has differing priorities, so you should push the camera into those dark corners, discover if it does what you want and where it falls apart.

Resolution figures aren't everything, which is why the Alexa is doing well against the RED One MX.

I don't know about Alan's noise figures, but even the best equipment can give false readings for various reasons, however, I expect Alan does calibrate it religiously. It could also be a sub standard camera.

One off questions about a particular camera doesn't mean everything is suspect. Alan Roberts is hugely respected, however, usually other people's tests and experiences confirm his findings. With this noise question, they don't seem to, so it's more wondering why there should be this perceived difference, rather than questioning every camera test.

As I said, test the camera yourself, you're limited watching hugely compressed on line videos shot with other people's set ups.

“Wow, numbers!”, I hear some folks thinking, “now we can find out which camera is best!” And it’s true that some folks will use these charts the way a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, rather than illumination. But I caution you to avoid reading more into these charts than they convey: while they provide a useful means of comparing and contrasting the relative performance of specific aspects of various cameras, they do not—and cannot—state the One True Number for any of these performance metrics. The methods used for coming up with these numbers haven’t been published, and actual numbers are very dependent on methodology.

Alan Roberts doesn't give a caution. However the provideo coalition test was done I think it may be an idea to a) Heed the above warnings and b) Seek to find WHY the F3 when properly tested only gives a little over 8 stops or be happy with 8 stops and all the jiggery pokery the camera performs to get such a great picture. However I doubt much of the jiggery pokery is applied to the FS100 at least not from what I have seen so far.

As I said, test the camera yourself and compare it to your EX1 with the adapter and see which suits your visual and working style.

Numbers can vary depending on how the camera is set up and which lenses you're using. I suspect Robert Primes ASC was using pretty standard industry methods that would allow you to compare both film and video images. It works if you're using the same test on each camera or film stock.

It's not the same as Alan Roberts method, but here is Geoff Boyle's and it could be similar to that used by Robert Primes. It's a pretty standard method that working DPs use.

. . . Alan Roberts is as good as it gets. If others are getting different measurements its time to look at why.. Not they're right and Alan is wrong.

There are enough obvious factual mistakes in his F3 report that it calls into question the accuracy of everything in it -- especially those comments that are markedly different than what other people have observed.

I just watched Phil Blooms second part and think he gave a very good description and well presented argument and agreed with him. I liked his footage from the FS100 more so than what I've seen so far. The FS100 is 8bit processing a single 8bit HDMI out One card slot No ND filters Not able to shoulder mount without an additional screen or tripod mount and shoot head height etc etc. It does have a nice sensor but the whole camera involves much working around and the workaround is no different to DSLR's but as Phil said lets not concentrate on the negatives as it has a nice sensor etc although Phil still prefers the image from the Canon 5dII. If I had to buy either the FS100 or the Panny It would be the Panny simply for easier faster setups if I didnt have to buy them then neither and wait for the canon 5d III Or who knows the scarlet..